Tremont, As far as I can see your "definition" deals with reasonable adjustments - not a definition of who is covered. I did not say there was no definition of a reasonable adjustment. As far as the DDA is concerned , I did point out that a person did NOT have to be receiving Dla, in order to be covered. I think it was Andie who said they should. I was talking in general terms , as that is what appeared to me , that Ida wanted - because she had the Acts in front of her. Ida, As far as the sickness is concerned - the general rule is that any sickness connected to the reason for the DDA decision should not count towards the individuals sickness record. However ( there's always one isn't there) if it becomes apparrent that the person is no longer able to perform their duties - even with the reasonable adjustments - the employer can dismiss on capability grounds. But absences would have to be long ones and there would have to be a few of them . Cheers - Scousegeezer

Leighv, Is this a disciplinary meeting or a development meeting. If it is the latter then I dont think you are allowed a rep there. If it is disciplinary then you can take a "friend" - does not have to be a trade union rep/member. Cheers - Scousegeezer

IDaInfife, It is not as simple as Andie states. There is no actual "definition". A person does not have to be in receipt of DLA to be classified as being covered by the DDA. Indeed, there are some people who receive Dla who are NOT covered by the DDA. E.g. a person receives the mobility sctn of Dla because they cannot walk very far ( lung problems) but their employer is not required to make any "reasonable" adjustments for their work because that person drives a desk - therfore nothing required to be done. ( just keeping it very simple). A person may be covered by the DDA of they have an angoing problem - if they have had the peoblem for twelve months and their doctor forsees the problem lasting another 2 yrs say, them they may be covered by the DDA. The crux of the matter really is, does the persons employer accept that they are covered. If they dont and the person insists that they are covered; them a court would have to make the decision. I know it all seems very complicated but it basically boils down to the employer/employee behaving reasonably. Most companies are reasonable were this is concerned however. Hope this helps. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Twiddles, Sorry, to hear of your health problems. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. As for your sickness record, that may not have been a problem ; until you went on holiday. Part of your code of conduct is that you dont go on holiday unless you have permission. You apply for leave and dont go unless you have been authorised. It is the same when you are on sick leave. Even if it is best for your health. You have to get a letter from your DR who would have to state that it would aide your recovery and be beneficial to your general health. Sorry to be the bearer of sad tidings - but as you are still in your probation ; when you combine you sick record and your "disciplinary" offence of going on leave without permission- I would not be surprised if they took this to capability. I would do as Dx says and go to see your Force Cons. rep - right away. My opinion is given as a retired Police Officer. If you want a second opinion - pm TD27 - hes still serving. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Locutus, Thanks for the quick reply. Just a couple of questions - put which DVD in the drive and what will this process do . Install my programmes from the discs and not the OS - or what . Cheers - Scousegeezer

Lihi, A new contract is only enforceable from the fate of implememntation, forward. They cannot make the new contract retrospective, as you are covered by your current contract. Thats the short answer. The only other point to make is that even if staff do not agree the new contract, management can introduce it with 90 days notice. That basically means if you dont like it you can leave. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Hi All, Some help required please , rather than just discussion re the new win7. I have a 64bit machine, running Vista Ultimate. About three months ago I carried out a check with Microsoft to see if I could upgrade my machine to Win7. The checker stated I could, but I had to buy the 64 bit edition of Win7 home premium. Went onto Amazon and ordered it. It arrived on thursday. Tried to load it and was told when the disc carried out another check that I would have to back-up my computer, otherwise all my programmes would be lost. So this I did , on thursday. Made a disk image to DVD's . Reloaded the Win7 last night. , then reloaded my computer back-up. and B****R me, when it re-started ; it came up as Vista. Now I realise that because I made a disk image it would and should indeed revert to Vista. My problem is - how do I just save my programmes and all my info to DVD's without saving the OS. Please help otherwise I have wasted £70. I have re-visited the Microsoft site to find out that I should have bought Win7 Ultimate, but that is not what I was told on my first visit. Ultimate will cost £199, which I dont want to spend. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

All, Just food for thought here. This year Boxing day is on a Saturday, therefore NOT a Bank Holiday. The Bank Holiday is actually on Monday. Therefore Saturday is treated as a normal working day. So, if you normally work or are rota'd to work Saturdays; then I would think you would have to work. How you are supposed to get there for 4am is a different matter. I would say that you would have to look at your conditions of service. Morally speaking I would suggest they would have to supply you with transport - taxi or hire a min-bus to pick people up. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Davehsug, I may be wrong , but my understaning is that any time off work due to your DDA condition is not counted towards sickness absence. This is because the management have to accept that you will have mprw time off than other "non" DDA staff. As stated above by your goodself. I am covered by the DDA myself, and this is what happened in my last job. The only time that your absence due to your "condition" should be taken into account is when your employer/management, are of the view that you can no longer do your job; due to your condition. This would be after more than one long absence - we are talking being off for a couple of months at a time. Then capability can rear its ugly head. Even then thery have to be very careful and exact in what/how they do things. Medical with company doctor , independant medical - so called. All of this to prove that you can no longer carry out your duties. Your employer does have to make reasonable adjustments - including sickness absence - what they do not have to do is let you carry on in a job that you are no longer able to do. That would be unreasonable. Also before dismissing you, they have to look if there is any job whatsoever within the copany, that you CAN do. If not they can go forward with capability. Cheers - Scousegeezer

KiloAlphaBravo, Firstly, you may have been issued a FPN prior to the date that the new legislation took effect and that is why you have had a summons issued. What is the date stamp on the summons - for the date it was issued. Limitation is six months for the summons to be issued - not including the day when you were stopped. So, if you were stopped and reported on 10th April , the date stamp for the issue of the summons should be not later than 10th October. If it is date stamped for issue after 10th October the offence is timed out. If I were you I would write back to the court pleading not guilty. On your first appearance submit to the court that the case should be dismissed absolutely. Take your insurance certificate and policy along to support your claim. Also take along the documentation for having your tyres changed. I cant see the court doing anything other than dismissing the case. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Twirlee, On the basis that your husband has been given a contract of employment, whether he has signed it or not ; whether he has returned it or not - it states that permission is required. On that basis your hubby appears to be laible for the costs. As permission was not requested. So as stated above , your hubby's employer may well be doing him a favour by not putting the claim forward to the insurance company. Therefore possibly saving him a summons for no insurance and possibly a disqualification. I may well be wrong , but that's how it appears. Sorry - Scousegeezer.

Mattyfez, The boss is not necessarily pulling a flanker. The vehicles may be correctly insured , for business purposes; but not for SDP. There was a case some years ago - cant remember the name of it , whereby it was held that a person who drives straight from home to a job , is covered for the "commuting time " and likewise travelling back home. Although some people may think that travel to and from work is not strictly busness, this case hel that it was business. Therefore the OP's husband is covered. He may not be covered for SDP. But it is not for the employer to advise whether he is covered for SDP purposes it is for the driver ( OP's husband) to ascertain if he is covered for SDP. I agree that this would mean that he would have to approach the employer to ask the relevant question(s). But there is no responsibility on the employer to inform staff iof they are or not. THIS IS FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW. From a moral point of view you would expect the employer to advise if staff are covered for SDP, but it is not incumbent on the employer to do so. The legal stance for this arguement is that the vehicle is a business vehicle not a social vehicle. Ergo, the OP's husband assumes the respopnsibility for the damages if he has not made the correct enquiries to ascertain if he is covered by the insurance for SDP purposes. In one way, the boss may be doing the driver a favour by not making a claim against his insurance, as this may bring it to light that he was not covered to drive SDP and therefore an offence of no insurance would be discovered. The possible consequence of that COULD be a disqualification. In law it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that he/she has insurance cover to drive a M/V on a road. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Twirlees, First of all I have to say - SOME FRIEND. ??!!!! Your hubby needs to have a look at his contract of employment. With particular regard to the use of company vehicles. He also needs to look at the Insurance cover that the company has , to see what restrictions there are on the use of company vehicles. Another thing is that after a raod traffic crash - contyrary to popular belief - you are not required to supply the other party with your insurance details - UNLESS , someone has been injured . It is besides the point that people usually do. It does save aggravation in the long run however- aggravation such as this. When there is cause for compensation to be paid to someone for damage to their vehicle, you have two choices. The first being that you supply your insurance details and advise the insurance company ; so they can expect a claim. Or you can choose to settle the damage yourself. Something which people do these days if the damage does not cost too much. With your husbands employer refusing to supply details of the company insurance, your husband has been unwillingly pushed into the second category - that of having to pay for the damage. That is unless the employer can be persuaded to "swap" ins details with the other party and advise the ins. co. of the crash. Sorry to be the bearerr of sad tidings, but it is best you know earlier rather than laterr. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Macmilm, All is not lost. It depends on which camera partnership covers your area, but; they may allow your wife to attend a speed awareness course. This however depends on any prev convictions and what tolerance they have for their course. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Macmilm, They are accurate. The way it works is that the operator has to watch the traffic and judge which vehicle is "speeding". He /she then trains the camera onto a specific vehicle, for a few seconds to get the correct reading and also to get the vehicle recorded - to i/d the vehicle and get VRM. They are not allowed to scan all vehciles as that is regarded in much the same way as random breath tests and is not allowed. So ther has to be a human element of judgement involved. When you get the photos back, I can more or less guarantee; that your vehicle will be the only vehicle in the shot that is used to prove the speed. There may be other vehicles in another photo but the one that proves the speed will be concentrated on your vehicle. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Macmilm, Firstly your NIP has been delivered in time - so no get out clause there. Secondly , you can request the photos to I/D the driver; as the offence is usually filmed from the front with the speed vans. Although they can detect speeding when the vehicle is travelling away from the van. It just shows as a minus speed i.e. -36 mph. That again is legal. Some forces have the photos on line - read the bumph that came with the NIP and see if you can view on line. Although you can request the photos, you still have to return the NIP within the 28 day time limit; nominating the driver. Also photos are the only thing that you can request. Some people say you should ask for maintenance redords and traing records etc. The TRUTH of the matter is that you cannot request anything further at this stage. Everything else is covered by the Magistrates Court Act ( Advance Information Rules ) and you can only get further info once you have had a court date and the pre-trial meeting. Then CPS have to send you all the info you request prior to the summary trial. Hope this helps. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Bumpybean, As your daughter is reachi9ng the age of majority, I would also advise taking out an enduring power of attorney. This is so you will be able to handle all her affairs in the future. It is not difficult to do. You can get the forms from your nearest County Court. All the explanations will be with the forms and it costs very little to do. Good luck - Scousegeezer.

Murbay, Any update as yet. Cheers - Scousegeezer

Andie303, Basically the same reasoning would apply. Is there onus on the person who's log-on details "were loaned" to someone else to check something - morally speaking yes and probably company policy as well that the person should change the password etc. BUT in law no. The wrongful act is misusing a computer, not having the wre-withall to do so. In other words, its like you having tools in your shed at home; wherby thay can be used in the course of crime. Its no offence to posess them, but once you take them out of your shed and carry them around looking for opportunity - then there is an offence - "going equipped for theft". So in a nutshell - its not wrong to have the means to do something - but it is wrong to use those means. Hope I have explained myself correctly. Cheers - Scousegeezer

It is clearly stated by the OP, in the original post that her friend logged onto her colleagues computer in order to check the e-mails. Therefore there can be no subjectivity. The only thing we do not know is how she got the log on details. I suggest that how she obtained the details does not matter, because the actions to complete the offence have been carried out. i.e she logged on and checked the e-mails. The offence is "misuse" - NOT having someones log on details. You can posess someones log-on details , that is not an offence - its what you do with them - or not. Therefore - it is GM and an offence has been commited under the actt. Cheers - Scousegeezer

I doubt this is genuinely a criminal offence. SG can you please refer to specifically which criminal offence you believe has been committed, as there is not an offence called "hacking" in law? Besides which, as we do not know the detail of how the account was accessed, it is a stretch to jump to this conclusion. Mr Shed, There's no such offence as "shoplifting either - but everyone knows it is theft. Seems like most people agree with me - IT IS SERIOUS - AND a criminal offence. AND you are in I.T. Security as well . TUT TUT. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Pk111, IMHO, I agree with Bernie. Your wife is the person who should have received the Fixed Penalty Notice. The driver is only responsible for children under 18yrs. Adult pasengers are responsible for themselve. The ticket is not enforceable, as no offence is stated on it. Cheers - Scousgeezer

Mr Shed, OK point taken, I will be precise in the future. However, when I stated that it was a criminal act, you disagreed. But a post from someone completely independant supports that it is a criminal offence. I also disagree with your definition of hacking. Accessing another computer and/or programme that you shouldn't ; is regarded as hacking. Thats what people understand as a general anyway. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Mr Shed, Unlawfully accessing someones computer - is commonly known as hacking. If you want me to be more precise in future I will be. I just speak so that people understand what I am saying. People usually understand the term hacking. Semantics. Cheers - Scousegeezer.

Dear All, From reading the thread, the "accused" somehow knew the password of the persons account that she accessed. Dont know how, but it was admitted by Debinere on her first post; I think. It still does not excuse what she did. Tremont1987, thank you for your post, I was just about to put it on. Cheers - Scousegeezer